biffvernon
-
Posts
277 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Events
Learn About Weather and Meteorology
Community guides
Posts posted by biffvernon
-
-
The problem remains, when you see someone who you believe to be endangering the very survival of humankind on the planet by the ideas they are trying spread, how do you tell them politely?
-
Paul, I don't think you should worry overmuch. You post a sticky 'Here be Dragons' warning at the top and then take a very light touch, allowing us to use all the sophisticated arguement and manners found in a pub on a Friday night. Those who don't like it, or more likely are bored with it, can go elsewhere so their complaints should not be taken too seriously.
There will always be lurkers who don't contribute, and importantly, lurkers who really don't know much about the issues yet. For their benefit it is important that rubbish is countered and contradicted. That isn't about changing people's minds (some are a lost cause) but guiding opinions for those who have none. There is a place for moderation - I knew of one US based climate site that was ruined by a handful of people who flooded the board with nonsense when the mods stayed asleep. But that hasn't happened here and although we have a few posters here who persistently post rubbish, at least it is quite challenging rubbish that makes one think about how it is to be countered, that process honing the arguements in a useful way.
Keep up the good work, Paul et. al..
-
No we don't all agree. The end-Permian was a warming event. 95% of all fossil forming lifeforms became extinct. The more recent ice ages are not associated with mass extinction. Nearer to home the current warming means that my grandchildren will not inherit my house as it will be under the sea. That will also be a problem for all the millions of people and several of the world's largest cities that are near near sea level. Governments have a duty to address that issue and the most cost effective way will be to stop producing CO2 by burning fossil fuels.In the grand scheme of things, we should be searching for means of warming the atmosphere in some distant time from the present, because I think all would agree that global warming would be a nuisance compared to the absolute disaster of another Ice Age. -
Wiki is controlled by the AGW proponents.
That's a relief.
-
Did you get as far as Gavin's conclusion?
All this shows wishful thinking overcoming logic. Every time there is a similar rush to judgment that is subsequently shown to be based on nothing, it still adds to the vast array of similar 'evidence' that keeps getting trotted out by the ill-informed. The excuse that these are just exploratory exercises in what-if thinking wears a little thin when the 'what if' always leads to the same (desired) conclusion. This week's play-by-play was quite revealing on that score. -
Surely, the data in the records are either valid, or invalid. The above seems to say if the data do not fit with the hypothesis, change the data, rather than the more scientifically valid option - change the hypothesis!
Maybe you should read about the bucket problem: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archi...kets-and-blogs/
-
Phil Brennan is a veteran journalist and World War II Marine who writes for Newsmax.com. He is editor and publisher of Wednesday on the Web (http://www.pvbr.com) and was Washington columnist (Cato) for National Review magazine in the 1960s.
He also served as a staff aide for the House Republican Policy Committee and helped handle the Washington public relations operation for the Alaska Statehood Committee which won statehood for Alaska. He is also a trustee of the Lincoln Heritage Institute and a member of the Association For Intelligence Officers.
Note: that's intelligence not intelligent. http://www.afio.com/index.html
More seriously, Gavin Schmidt has posted an article about the Nature paper by Domingues et al on sea temperatures. I hope the usual suspects will bring themselves to read it, even though it appears on RealClimate:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archi...tent-revisions/
-
The last sentence:- "The planet's oceans store more than 90 percent of the heat in the Earth's climate system and act as a temporary buffer against the effects of climate change." is a reminder for those who get excited about a percieved lack of warming in the atmosphere recently.
The heat is going down deep but has to come back eventually.
-
Eh-up! Has somebody deleted my last post?
-
The trouble is the stakes are so high. It's not the sort of issue that 'agree to disagree' is a good strategy. We are talking about the survival of the human species. We know that our actions are risking that survival. We have known it for a long time. There are still people who, despite the results of the greatest endeavour in the history of science, still insist on deniying the truth. It is very difficult to walk the narrow path between keeping on the right side of the moderators of this forum and calling some of the posters what we think of them.
We're not saying that we're definately doomed, just that if there is just a 1% chance of disaster then action must be taken and never mind toes that get trodden on.
-
Look folks, the New Ice Age is here. The blue line has gone above the green dashy one.
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/..._timeseries.png
The deniers are proved right.
-
Whoops, the blue line seems to have crossed the green dotty line.
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/..._timeseries.png
-
[pedant] But Madagascar and Zanzibar have very different histories. It's a geography thing.[/pedant]Due to the geological history of Madagascar (Zanzibar) ... -
Nice try, biff! But if you want to make it a semantic argument then I think you'll find that the word "Science" is derived from the Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge".
Learning is a process, but knowledge is not.
CB
The word may be derived from the same root but that does not mean that it means the same.
Science is not the same as knowledge, though science may lead us to knowledge. In the case under discussion, the process of science has led us to the knowledge that the phenomenon of AGW is real, not imaginary.
-
So you're saying that AGW isn't science then...?
CB
That's right. Science is a process. AGW is a phenomenon elucidated by science.
-
Is AGW science, politics or a religion?
None of the above. It's just a fact.
-
Assuming you have as much chance as the rest of us, that's one in sixty million. I'd put shorter odds on the David Lawrence paper.And I could still be the next Prime Minister. -
I didn't actually say it was a probable outcome. Neither did I say it was highly unlikely. I just said it was possible. Ascribing probablilities to such events is of dubious value but acknowledging the reality is something else. If Greenland and WAIS were to melt, quite a lot of the Brazilian forest would be flooded. Greatly reduced rainfall in some of the present rainforest areas is a scenario that has to be taken seriously.Yes, but why speak about it like it is a probable outcome? You chose two risks to focus on so if it is highly unlikely, an uknown, then why chose it?It is highly unlikely to happen, that the Amazon rainforest turns into a desert like climate. It is a doomsday scenario that is thrown about with a pinch of salt.
-
???????
Being rich would enable you to buy this vast tract of virgin Rain Forest and protect and prevent it from being felled and exploited; the point I was making.
Of course you were. It's a great daydream but being rich might not insulate you from bad stuff.
That is a serious unknown but not beyond the realms of the possible. It's the probablility that we just can't determine at this stage. Sea level rise is the other threat to this piece of real estate.Come on, is it really highly likely that a tropical, wet climate would change into a desert? -
But you might not be able to keep it as it is. The forest might become desert or the sea level rise to flood it. Being rich won't stop AGW.
-
I thought that there was anecdotal evidence throughout Europe and Greenland? Perhaps not, then .... going to talk to my pet goblin at the end of our garden
Yes, but my point was that anecdotal evidence for a local (Europe and Greenland) warming is not sufficient to accuse the IPCC of lying. That requires something much stronger as it is a serious charge. I am confident that the history of Europe and Greenland has been taken into account by the relevant members of the IPCC.
-
What infuriates me is how the IPCC lie
Such a strong statement calls for strong evidence. Referring to the so-called Medieval Warm, which most Earth system scientists regard as at best a local phenomenon if not mythology, is not enough.
-
But LG is wrong and Dev is right. Bleedin' obvious in'it?
-
It's taken a long time for that story to reach the Torygraph! Some of the alledged 'scientist' signatories have been dead for quite a while
Is it possible to discuss Climate Change?
in Space, Science & nature
Posted
One aspect of the 'debate' is that maybe we are not trying to get someone to change their mind - that's a lost cause - but rather, we're trying to influennce the unseen audience who has not yet made up it's mind.
Thus:
A> Pig's fly.
B> Rubbish.
A> Pig's fly.
B> You pigflyist, you.
A> Pig's fly, see http/blahblah.ed
B> Pig's don't fly, that isn't a peer reviewed journal.
A> Pig's fly according to observations by Prof Avianpig phd.
A> Prof Avianpig phd bought his phd on the net and believes in alian abduction.
The idea is that the audience gets the message that the pig flyist camp is peopled by pretend scientists who are evil nutters intent on destroying the planet and poor misguided souls who have been led astray.